Wikipedia:Peer review/SECR N class/archive1

SECR N class

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is well on its way to reaching FA status. What the article needs at the moment is checking of prose by a third party editor who is detached from the writing of this article. Otherwise, a general check-over is required prior to starting the FA process.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing notes


 * Wasn't the initial livery SECR grey, with engine number in white on the tender?


 * Think the Churchward references need tightening up. He used long travel valves- did the N class use similar?Ning-ning (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Woodham references- could they be deleted? (since the same info about wagons gets repeated ad vapourem). Ning-ning (talk)


 * Section headed Second Woolwich Batch with Woolwich in quotes refers in the text to their nickname as "Woolworths". Should the quotation marks be removed from the heading, as it gives the impression that "Woolwich" is a nickname as well? Ning-ning (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with these to some degree, although any help you can give in fine-tuning the factual content of the article will be greatly appreciated. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor's comment

Just to let the reviewers know, I (as the lead editor of this article who nominated it for Peer Review) will be away from Wikipedia over this weekend attending a railway open day at Eastleigh railway works, and will not be able to respond to any reviews until Sunday evening. However, please continue reviewing the article as the moment I'm back, I'll endeavour to catch up on the backlog. Thanks for your understanding, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think this looks pretty close to ready for FAC, so most of my suggestions will be pretty nit-picky.
 * There are some places where abbreviations are used without being spelled out first. Just in the lead GWR and CME should be spelled out in As the first non-Great Western Railway (GWR) locomotive to use and improve upon the basic principles established by GWR Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) George Jackson Churchward, ...
 * I know the years are in the second and third paragraphs of the lead, but I was wondering if it wouldn't help to put some indication of time period in the first paragraph as well. I saw the image and, while I am not a locomotive expert by any means, thought "this looks much older than 1948" when I read the caption. Perhaps even add something like "built between the First and Second World Wars" or something similar to give an idea of the time these were built?
 * This might just be AE vs BE, but it seems like a word is missing from the caption N class No. 31871 at Plymouth [in?] 1948 in early British Railways livery
 * This is linked, so it might be OK as is, but perhaps adding something about the Watercress Line being a heritage railway to One N class locomotive has been preserved on the Watercress Line.[4] would help?
 * In the Background section, it seems like "K passenger tank locomotive" should be linked (it seems like it is a redlink, so maybe this is a stub to write?). I also think it would help immensely to give some sort of year / dates here to provide context to the reader
 * There are several places that seem to need references, for example in the Background section the last sentence of each paragraph does not have a ref and seems like it needs one. There are also some places where it seems like repeated refs could be merged, so the first two sentences of the Background section both use ref [5] - why not just have the ref at the end of the second sentence (the first is not a direct quote that needs its own ref that I can see).
 * I am unclear on the meaning of this sentence Production began towards the end of the war with No. 810 emerging from Ashford works a month after the first of the K class 2-6-4 in August 1917.[5]  I think it would be clearer as Production began towards the end of the war with No. 810 emerging from Ashford works in September 1917, a month after the first of the K class 2-6-4.[5] (not sure the date is correct as I am not sure if that is what the sentence means). I would link the wheel arrangement 2-6-4 here too.
 * In First SECR batch I would add GWR here to drive home the point that these owed a lot to designs from another line the new locomotive displayed several Churchward influences, making them similar to the [GWR] 4300 class.
 * Missing word? ... as Midland Railway influences could be found with the placement of the locomotive fittings, as [the?] water top-feed into the boiler was located inside a dome...
 * I know this is implied by No. 810 was run in and trialled over a period of three years before construction of the first batch continued in June 1920. The initial batch of 15 locomotives was built at Ashford works between 1917 and 1923 but would it make sense to explicitly add something like with 14 of them built between 1920 and 1923?
 * I just don't get the "Woolworths" nickname - if they were nicknamed "Woolwiches" maybe. Is this an allusion to the chain store F. W. Woolworth Company? Is Woolworth a nickname for Wollwich? I think this needs a bit of explanation for interested but culturally deprived foreigners ;-)
 * In the Second "Woolworth" batch section I am fuzzy as to the time scale - could the year(s) when the kits were made be added to the first paragraph?
 * I also think it would help to add "London's" to Metropolitan Railway (until I clicked the link I thought it was an Irish railway)
 * Is there any idea of how many of the 100 kits were sold / how many of these were built from the kits (besides the 50 built by the SECR)? Presumably all the kits were sold (or scrapped??) before the third batch was built (or they would just have bought more kits)
 * Unclear sentence  The success of the 2-cylinder design spawned the three-cylinder N1 class locomotive, which was developed from a kit of parts for another N class locomotive.[5] First off, "three-cylinder N1 class locomotive" needs a link. Second, was the N1 developed from one of the kits for these locomotives? Or is there a third N class (these, N1, and something else) that also had kits that led to the N1??
 * Missing word? although originally equipped with smokebox-mounted snifting valves, these were removed by Oliver Bulleid [at?] the end of the Second World War.[10]
 * OK, Operational details and preservation makes the N1 development clearer - does this need to be in two places (2nd batch and Operational details and preservation though?)
 * Spot the redundancy with No. 1850 being fitted with J. T. Marshall valve gear valve gear between 1933 and 1934.[12]
 * I think the sentences in Operational details and preservation are organized thematically, but it does mean that they jump around a bit chronologically. The third paragraph is post war / Nationalisation, the fourth goes back to Southern Railway, then forward to the (unspecified) date when the last example was rescued from the scrap yard (can the year be added?)
 * Any chance for more images? Is the preserved locomotive visible to the public for photographs?
 * Unfortunately, it is shunted out of sight at Ropley on the Mid-Hants Railway, so it is difficult to get photos of it unless someone is willing to put one up. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps - seems overall quite nicely done. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to indicate in the lead that the preserved engine "is currently stored pending overhaul"? Also probably want a year in place of currently (as of 2009...)
 * I removed this recently, BulleidPacific had included it. My thought was that including it would mean the lede would have to be kept updated as the loco's operational status changed, which seemed unnecessary effort. EdJogg (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems seen with livery etc. Refs seem OK too


 * On behalf of the lead editor, thank you for such a thorough review. (My apologies for not having had time to go through and fix some of these previously!) Some of these changes require access to references which I do not have, so I will have to leave the application of your suggestions to BP when he returns.
 * EdJogg (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor's comment

Well, I'm back from an excellent time at Eastleigh, but I'll do a quick fix now, but the rest will have to wait until at least tomorrow. Thanks for the review! Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've sorted out most, if not all the issues highlighted above. Please feel free to highlight any more that need addressing, or bring to the editor's attention anything missed out in the last round of edits. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will look at it later - there is an image of one under steam here on Flickr - the photographer might be willing to release it under a free license if contacted. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a bit more time than expected and read through it quickly just now while looking at the PR - the major issues all seem to have been resolved. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)